What is cognition?

Bayne, Tim; Brainard, David H.; Byrne, Richard W.; Chittka, Lars; Clayton, Nicky; Heyes, Cecilia; Mather, Jennifer A.; Ölveczky, Bence P.; Shadlen, Michael N.; Suddendorf, Thomas; Webb, Barbara

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.05.044

Cited by 95 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In psychology, the comprehension of (human) behavior and mental processes is the main spearpoint of scientific inquiry, and in the case of clinical psychology, the main theme of research is psychopathology, its phenomenology, associated etiological mechanisms, and their amplification or abridgment through interventions. Science is highly dependent on the definition and operationalization of the constructs under investigation, and this is true for psychology and clinical psychology in particular, which are dominated by concepts such as emotion and cognition that have been conceptualized in a variety of ways (e.g., Barrett 2017;Bayne et al 2019). The multiform definition of constructs in this branch of science may give rise to debate and controversy, which oftentimes-after substantial empirical inquiry-results in a coexistence of diverse perspectives (e.g., Toomela 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Process of Science: A Critical Evaluation of more than 15 Years of Research on Self-Compassion with the Self-Compassion Scale

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Falsification is regarded as a cornerstone of science. Anomalous data-even when highly credible-do not always lead to an adjustment of theory. In this paper, we discuss reasons for why current theories are not modified despite a corpus of work falsifying (parts of) the theory, using the case of self-compassion as an example. During more than 15 years, this psychological construct has been heralded as a protective factor against stress and emotional adversity. Methods A search in the Web of Science database using [SELF-COMPASSION in title] as the search term was conducted and found empirical papers were critically evaluated. Results Good evidence abounds indicating that the theoretical definition of self-compassion is limited and that as a consequence its proper assessment with the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) is obscured as the measure is contaminated by psychopathological characteristics. Surprisingly, few researchers take these critical notes into account when conducting and reporting new studies on this topic. We argue that this might be due to all kinds of (conscious and unconscious) tendencies and cognitive biases of researchers and clinicians. Conclusion Research lines are not always guided by solid data but strongly determined by social factors. We close by providing a recommendation for researchers regarding the assessment of self-compassion including the continued use of the SCS.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Process of Science: A Critical Evaluation of more than 15 Years of Research on Self-Compassion with the Self-Compassion Scale

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is this distance that is the locus of most methodological criticism in our field which, as we saw above, primarily addresses the validity of the test in question. Insofar as phenomenon-based comparative cognition attempts to test for human-like cognitive capacities in animals (Heyes, 2019), this distance will always be present (Hempel, 1958;Hennefield et al, 2018).…”

Section: Definitional Ambiguity and The Selling Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Part of the issue stems from the inherent ambiguity in the verbal hypotheses and definitions that are derived from theory. Across psychology, such verbal models are open to many available and justifiable interpretations (Smaldino, 2016(Smaldino, , 2017, and the disagreements that arise from this are common in phenomenon-based comparative cognition (Heyes, 2019). This flexibility afforded by underspecified definitions allows us to produce results that 'cognition optimists' would perceive as novel and groundbreaking, whilst 'cognition pessimists' can equally well use the same results to invalidate the test and/or discuss the lack of evidence for the exceptional theory.…”

Section: Definitional Ambiguity and The Selling Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The illusion of science in comparative cognition

Bg¹,

Ostojić²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prominent vein of comparative cognition research asks which cognitive abilities may be ascribed to different species. Here, we argue that the current structure of comparative cognition makes it near impossible to evaluate the accuracy of many of the claims produced by the field's empirical research. We base this argument on six observations: i) the field is biased towards confirming more exceptional abilities in animals, ii) a likely high rate of false positive discovery, iii) the persistence of the bias towards more exceptional abilities, even in the presence of strong methodological criticism, iv) the absence of a formal method to assess evidence of absence of a cognitive ability, v) the ambiguity in definitions used to make claims, and vi) the small size of the research field. We then highlight how the widespread methodological and conceptual criticism in the comparative cognition literature does not facilitate scientific progress, rather it can impede it by creating an illusion of scientific rigour. Finally, we call for a reform of our research field that draws on recent developments in related fields and the Open Science movement. Now, fifteen months later, we have finally been able to put these thoughts to paper -the result of which is in front of you. When we are engrossed in a research programme, most of our time and effort is taken up by it. Taking a step back to evaluate the framework itself can be difficult. We hope that this paper may aid others in doing so if and when they decide to take that step.

show abstract

“…The call to clarify cognition became subsequently a wider concern that received a lot of attention (e.g. Walter and Kästner 2012;Kaplan 2012;Serrano et al 2014;Buckner 2015;Newen 2017;Ramsey 2017;Allen 2017;Akagi 2018;Figdor 2018;Bayne et al 2019). Discussions on 'cognitive ontology' also made an impact on the cognitive neurosciences (Poldrack 2006(Poldrack , 2010Figdor 2013;Anderson 2015) and by now the position in the quote reflects a specific position rather than the consensus view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demarcating cognition: the cognitive life sciences

Keijzer

2020

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper criticizes the role of intuition-based ascriptions of cognition that are closely related to the ascription of mind. This practice hinders the explication of a clear and stable target domain for the cognitive sciences. To move forward, the proposal is to cut the notion of cognition free from such ascriptions and the intuition-based judgments that drive them. Instead, cognition is reinterpreted and developed as a scientific concept that is tied to a material domain of research. In this reading, cognition becomes a changeable theoretical concept that can and must be adapted to the findings within this target domain. Taking humans as the best-established existing example of the relevant material target domain, this central case is extended to include all living systems. To clarify what it is about living systems that warrants their role as cognitive target domain, the new concept of cobolism is introduced as a complement to metabolism. Cobolism refers to the systematic ways in which each living system encompasses structures, processes and external events that maintain the fundamental metabolic processes that constitute the core of each living system. Cobolism is perfectly general, applies to bacterial and human cases alike, and provides a general format to describe wildly different cognitive organizations. It provides a clear target for the cognitive sciences to work on, turning them into what we can call the cognitive life sciences.

show abstract

What is cognition?

Cited by 95 publications

References 49 publications

The Process of Science: A Critical Evaluation of more than 15 Years of Research on Self-Compassion with the Self-Compassion Scale

The Process of Science: A Critical Evaluation of more than 15 Years of Research on Self-Compassion with the Self-Compassion Scale

The illusion of science in comparative cognition

Demarcating cognition: the cognitive life sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About